|
|
On April 20 2012 03:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:22 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 03:07 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:53 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid. Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot. Even 2001-2005 period had big debt increase. Out of bounds was maybe too strong, but even in the first term debt was increased significantly. And since the poster I responded to is accusing Obama of mishandling the economy worse than Bush, 2005-2009 period is Bush's fault in the same way 2009-2011 period is Obama's fault. 2009-2011 the debt increase was lower than in 2005-2009. So he seems to have wrong impression. But the debt wasn't really uncontrollable. No President wants to preside over a government surplus, even in this climate. Sure, in hindsight with the debt problems we have now, we look back at the surplus Clinton left us and think, "How do you screw that up?" But even now, Republican debt solutions don't provide a surplus. They cut government spending, then lower taxes, which keeps a deficit in the budget. Correct, but this has nothing with my original point of pointing out that if you consider Obama economic management fiasco due to height of deficits, then you have to consider Bush economic management even bigger fiasco. It seems you are arguing against things that have not much to do with my original post.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to bring both into context.
|
On April 20 2012 03:17 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:56 Sweepstakes wrote:
Here's why I will not be voting for Romney:
Republicans sign a pledge refusing to EVER raise taxes.
Republicans infuse religion into legislation.
Republicans force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Republicans are against gay marriage (solely because of the Bible)
Republicans lie (moreso than Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong)
Republican congressman apologized to BP during their oil spill hearing
Republicans blah blah blah, etc.
Mitt Romney = Republican
The economy will fix itself, its issues are greater than Republican vs. Democrat. The social issues are what need to be fixed. It is absolutely appalling that in the year 2012, GLBT people cannot be married solely because it goes against what is written in a certain book. I have always found it funny that Christians are the ones who seem to forget the Golden Rule most often.
Yeah, and we can produce an equally ridiculous list that Democrats have also supported. You sound like a blind partisan.
If you agree that that list is ridiculous, then you are probably social liberal then. And if you are social liberal, there is no reason to be associated with conservatives. I would love to see a list of issues where democrats are social conservative.
also as an atheist, it's an easy vote for Obama who actually recognizes my right to exist, whereas many republicans have gone on record considering atheists "un-American" or telling us to leave the country.
|
On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not.
I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially.
|
On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially.
He still had to get loans and stuff to attend University.
He was far from poor or lower class, but he was not Prince MegaRich like many other people who can run for president.
|
On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially.
I don't see how anyone can think of Obama as an average joe or someone who can even connect with average joes. His background and upbringing were nothing like those ordinary Americans. Hell, the guy has an ivy league education, went to law school, and was a professor -- all of which divorce individuals from the realities of ordinary people.
|
On April 20 2012 03:35 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially. He still had to get loans and stuff to attend University. He was far from poor or lower class, but he was not Prince MegaRich like many other people who can run for president.
You know another President who came from VERY humble origins? Bill Clinton.
|
At the end of the day you had better be voting for who you think will enact policies that will actually increase the standard of living, prosperity, and freedom for the country.
If you are voting on the basis of who has what in the bank or who ate more dog as a kid, you're dooming this country.
Politicans play these stupid games with social isssues and non-sense controveries in an attempt to enflame emotions.
Vote with your head, not your heart. It bears repeating:
Vote for who you think will enact policies that will better increase the standard of living, prosperity, and freedom for the country.
If that's your basis for voting, then fine, whoever you pick.
|
On April 20 2012 03:35 SafeAsCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially. He still had to get loans and stuff to attend University. He was far from poor or lower class, but he was not Prince MegaRich like many other people who can run for president.
Your fiscal standing has no bearing on your presidential policies.
|
On April 20 2012 03:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially. I don't see how anyone can think of Obama as an average joe or someone who can even connect with average joes. His background and upbringing were nothing like those ordinary Americans. Hell, the guy has an ivy league education, went to law school, and was a professor -- all of which divorce individuals from the realities of ordinary people.
Just because he went to a good school and worked hard does not mean he's not "ordinary". He was raised in a middle-class family at best. He had to take out student loans. He was even hooked on drugs at one point in his life. He worked through all those problems, and even after he was successful as a lawyer, he continued to be involved in the community. How is that not someone trying to live out the American Dream?
|
On April 20 2012 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ? Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this: -You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good? -You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes. I'm an American (and it hurts me to say this), and I'm pretty sure that we're generally the most ignorant group of people regarding most international subjects, and that even includes our own politics. Hell, a ton of our people watch Fox news, which is one of the most unreliable sources you can possibly get news from on television. That's far more biased than the frickin BBC. Maybe you should listen to what they have to say.
LOL, I too despise Fox News but never brought it up in my arguments as these foreigners have likely never seen them. I make my own opinions because I see how biased any media is (some more than others).
I will end by saying that I will pay for a war to protect our freedom any and every day. I will not however, vote for a person who wants to dump even more of my money into the laziness that is welfare, government subsidizing, and Obamacare.
Edit: or worse, borrow money from other countries to do so....
|
On April 20 2012 03:43 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ? Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this: -You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good? -You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes. I'm an American (and it hurts me to say this), and I'm pretty sure that we're generally the most ignorant group of people regarding most international subjects, and that even includes our own politics. Hell, a ton of our people watch Fox news, which is one of the most unreliable sources you can possibly get news from on television. That's far more biased than the frickin BBC. Maybe you should listen to what they have to say. LOL, I too despise Fox News but never brought it up in my arguments as these foreigners have likely never seen them. I make my own opinions because I see how biased any media is (some more than others). I will end by saying that I will pay for a war to protect our freedom any and every day. I will not however, vote for a person who wants to dump even more of my money into the laziness that is welfare, government subsidizing, and Obamacare. Edit: or worse, borrow money from other countries to do so....
So you won't vote for Romney then, considering his government healthcare program in Massachusetts is a shining example of how government involvement in health spending reduces cost and provides for everyone.......oh wait......
|
Funny how hardly anyone even considers a third party candidate, but I guess that's just US politics for you.
|
On April 20 2012 03:49 reincremate wrote:
Funny how hardly anyone even considers a third party candidate, but I guess that's just US politics for you.
Funny how even in parliamentarian systems the mechanical effect produces usually only two major parties as well, that's politics in general for you.
No matter how hard liberterians yell, I'm not going to vote for someone who believes the federal reserve should be abolished and believe in returning to enhanced states rights.
|
On April 20 2012 03:43 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 20 2012 03:08 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:46 mcc wrote:
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ? Again, we have a non-American chiming in with his wonderful and all-knowing view of the American dilemma and his views on why Obama is 10x better than any other candidate. I already know that most of your foreigners are wrong, so I will just leave it at this: -You get all of your news from your own country, which most likely doesnt like America or Bush in the first place so why would they make it look good? -You can also get your information from CNN or BBC, which are both so liberal that they would never make Bush, Republicans, or in some cases, even America look good so maybe you're not completely crazy but at least open up your eyes. I'm an American (and it hurts me to say this), and I'm pretty sure that we're generally the most ignorant group of people regarding most international subjects, and that even includes our own politics. Hell, a ton of our people watch Fox news, which is one of the most unreliable sources you can possibly get news from on television. That's far more biased than the frickin BBC. Maybe you should listen to what they have to say. LOL, I too despise Fox News but never brought it up in my arguments as these foreigners have likely never seen them. I make my own opinions because I see how biased any media is (some more than others). I will end by saying that I will pay for a war to protect our freedom any and every day. I will not however, vote for a person who wants to dump even more of my money into the laziness that is welfare, government subsidizing, and Obamacare. Edit: or worse, borrow money from other countries to do so....
Most of my friends know very well MSNBC, Fox, CNN and watched all of them from time to time. But since all of them are rather rubbish it is just from time to time. Most of my information comes from multitude of sources. Your assumptions are completely off.
|
The OP is ridiculously biased... How have most of those "discussion points" not been edited out yet?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2012 03:53 kwizach wrote:
The OP is ridiculously biased... How have most of those "discussion points" not been edited out yet?
Agreed. Obvioulsy with a political discussion there is going to be bias. I'd prefer if it wasn't in the OP though (or at least not so glaring)
|
As a former republican, the party has been dead to me since they got in bed so deep with the religious right that they can't get out from under the sheets. I can never in good concious vote republican again until the whole party is destroyed and rebuilt. Huntsman was about the only reasonable Republican candidate in this last cycle and he was laughed out before the 3rd or 4th primaries. Republicans are doomed because they rely on these troglodyte bible thumbers to boost their base, but they're too damn crazy to appeal to moderates and independants. They need to cut rid of the religious social nonsense and build a legitimate platform to reform their party.
voted obama in '08, will vote obama again in '12. The biggest failure of Obama in my eyes is that he actually believed he could run the show bipartisan. He should have just forced all his ideas and legislature through when he had a massively democratic sentate and congress after the 08 elections. He missed his window and now he's been more or less unable to accomplish anything with the new breed monogoloid republicans blocking any attempt at progress.
|
Well, my brain tells me Obama should win the election, but it seems like there are a lot of things that could go wrong before the election that cause him to lose favor in the public eye.
|
On April 20 2012 03:51 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 03:49 reincremate wrote:
Funny how hardly anyone even considers a third party candidate, but I guess that's just US politics for you. Funny how even in parliamentarian systems the mechanical effect produces usually only two major parties as well, that's politics in general for you. No matter how hard liberterians yell, I'm not going to vote for someone who believes the federal reserve should be abolished and believe in returning to enhanced states rights.
That's actually not true at all. What breeds a two-party system is a large amount of winner take all districts without any proportional representation.
|
On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him.
Wanna bet Romney is more out of touch. How about $10,000 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
